I've seen no evidence the subpena said unconditionally "all", at least not after the fact.

Those details are important in code AND law. "Sorry, Judge, I forgot the WHERE clause in my SQL when reading the law".

with Comcast, it takes 3 days of downloading before you can tell they are maggots.

Actually, I'm guessing...

There's your first problem.

What EXACTLY is the object or thing or noun that she WILLFULLY "concealed, removed, mutilated, obliterated, or destroyed"?

To make a case, you have to identify at least one clear-cut object/instance.

If you find one that she she may have forgotten to CC the right reviewers, she could claim it was forgetfulness.

You'd have to show that she "forgot" often, or intentionally plotted to skip the proper CC.

I expect better details from slashdot nerds than one gets on a general political forum, where non-nerds process slogans and impressions directly to make conclusions instead of solid logic backed by reference-able details.

We were looking at going with DirectTV to get away from AT&T, because AT&T sucks rotting puss-filled maggot carcases on a good day.

There goes that plan.

McAfee.

Bull. The retention laws were vague.

I agree she exercised poor judgement in this regard, but "illegal" has yet to be established.

if one of us little people had pulled such a stunt we'd be rotting in jail

That's largely because you need the best lawyers to navigate the complicated legal process. Only the wealthy and connected can afford the best lawyers.

In general, the laws governing this appear to be vague*, potentially contradictory, written by technically clueless lawyers, and interpreted by technically clueless judges. There's a lot of wiggle-room for interpretation, and the best lawyers can leverage that wiggle room to their advantage.

If you get a cheap lawyer, like the rest of us would have to, then the other side can use that fuzzy wiggle room against our C-grade lawyer, and we end up in jail with a cellmate named "Bubba".

* I've yet to see one clear-cut law that nails Mrs. C., despite lofty claims otherwise.

.. all at the behest of the tinfoil industry.

Updates are often expensive and disruptive to an organization. The security expert may not care because it's "somebody else's problem". (I suppose this works both ways.)

Software often depends on multiple layers. Updating one layer often breaks another. Typical steps involve:

1. Keep an eye out for updates
2. Read up on any changes
3. Create a test stack or station to test an update in your org's environment and/or with the other layers.
4. Fix or devise work-arounds for any problems caused by the update found by the testing
5. Schedule the update deployment
6. Prepare a contingency or roll-back plan if there are problems
7. Coordinate and announce down-time during deployment
8. Test production after deployment
9. Educate users of changes
10. Answer questions and/or study new problems or user confusion over new features/behavior.

That's not only labor intensive, but if something goes wrong, managers often ask, "If ain't broke, why did you fix it?"

You can then reply that it reduces security risks to be up-to-date, but the managers or owners often view it as a concrete expenditure and disruption weighed against a fairly unlikely hypothetical, i.e. "being hacked". They are going to want solid evidence of breach probabilities to weigh against the costs of update labor & headaches, which are here-and-now costs and user disruption.

You can't just say, "updates are good for you, like broccoli". The suits often see it as make-work job security games. Better and presentable evidence is needed.

We don't have to have 2-way communication to know if there is intelligent life there. If we receive their TV signals, for example, we'll know, even though we cannot reply in our life-time. (I hope they don't have Kardashians also.....hmm, maybe the Kardashians are from there.)

And, we may be able to pick up the spectrum of life-related chemicals from here if we get powerful/big enough telescopes. But, we wouldn't know much about the nature of the animals (or equiv.) from that alone.

Although the password keeper point struck me as interesting, I take issue with the "experts" stance on updates.

People don't shun (non-OS) updates because they "might" install malware - They shun them because they do install unwanted tag-alongs (if not outright malware). Flash tries to install its partner-of-the-week every time you update it. Chrome just added push notifications. Java... Let's not even go there. And let's not overlook the fact that most users can't tell a legit update prompt from a drive-by installer.

Security experts have a bias here because they:
1) can usually tell the legit updates from the bogus ones (and know enough to get the bloat-free version of the update); and
2) can themselves remove or repair the occasional spyware that slips through, without needing to pay BestBuy $150 for five minutes' work on a machine only worth $300 in the first place.

But you are a sheep. Just not Microsoft's sheep.

Yes and no - That would count as a valid reason, if not for the fact that Wu has five minutes of fame solely because of GG. No one gives the least damn about the co-founder of some two-bit game studio.

When your pony has only one trick, no one comes to the show to hear its opinions on the merits of alfalfa vs clover. Heck, until the trolls showed up and explained why we should care about this Q&A, I dismissed it as a blatant Dicevertisement.

Did you actually have a point, or just wanted to play a flaming douchenozzle on Slashdot?